I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

1. There is a difference between Egypt and other Orthodox churches, due to a more forceful ruling by one of our local synods (cf Fr Peter's articles)2. Any bishop who becomes patriarch is still valid as bishop for the diocese for which he was ordained. They are not a valid bishop of the new diocese eg Cilicia, since they were never ordained for this role (or is there a second ordination? what is the practice in other churches?). But I guess it is not as big a deal in other churches because of 1).

Then there is another problem, as the Pope of Alexandria has long been consecrated and enthroned in Cairo, and the Patriarch of Antioch has been consecrated and enthroned in Damascus, and before that in the Saffron Monastery.

And it is a long standing canonical and ecclesiastical principle that a bishop may not interfere or even step into a diocese not his own, both in the EO and the OO canons and ecclesiology.

Nor can a bishop, once consecrated to the episcopacy, be reconsecrated again. The episcopate is one, the many holding it in common for the whole.

Isn't Antioch pretty much a Titular See by now? When was the last time an EO or OO Patriarch of Antioch set foot in Antioch?

I don't know how recently or frequently the EO Patriarch goes there, but it has been fairly regular-His Beatitude does have a Cathedral there since Ottoman times (when the city recovered in the 18th century or so). When I was there ('92) I saw pictures of HB's last visit.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

This question was asked by HE Metropolitan Bishoy as a criticism to the anti-diocesan-bishops camp, to which HG Bishop Youssef replied that in such cases, while they are liable to invalidity, they have not been judged, and so they are valid. He gave te precedent of The Meletian schism, how despite the schism, all those ordained by Meletius were considered valid. Likewise, despite the history of simony and uncanonical practices, the orders are valid.

Quote

Second: To say that moving of bishops and metropolitans to the Patriarchate is un-canonical will make the current priesthood in the Church un-canonical.

We have a precedent in the case of Meletius who started a schism by ordaining bishops priests and deacons in areas not under his jurisdiction. The council of Nicaea ordered him to cease and desist without defrocking him. All the ordinations that he performed were recognized. In the same manner, all the ordinations performed by the 3 metropolitans who became Patriarchs are canonical according the ruling of the council of Nicaea.Further, if someone contravenes a canon of the church he becomes liable to excommunication but is not excommunicated except he undergoes an ecclesiastical tribunal and is condemned.

Saint Cyril the Great always addressed Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople in spite of his heresy, and only after he was condemned and excommunicated did he treat him as a heretic.In the same manner, those 3 metropolitans who became Patriarchs were not subjected to a tribunal, nor were they excommunicated, and so all their sacramental practices are valid.

We all know that during the papacy of these metropolitans many ordinations were performed by simony, but the church accepted these ordinations. And since none of these people were actually excommunicated, the church accepted all the ordinations that they performed.

However, does the fact that those who broke the canons in the afore mentioned examples were not put to trial and condemned, mean that the Church accepts simony? Of course not, but the sacramental practices they performed are canonical even though they were canon breakers.

This sounds harsh, but in no way meant to condemn our sister churches as heretical. We believe in certain principles, and we hope that if we succeed in keeping strict these principles, that we may be an example to other churches without condemnation, especially since this practice is extremely common now.

We as OOs have proven our diversity in many other issues. Many Copts do not find any other baptism besides OO and EO acceptable, and for the most part, Copts chrismate EOs (which had been proven to be unprecedented). We do not accept open communion or open marriages with anyone outside the Orthodox church. And we also are in communion with two churches that excommunicate each other (Syriac and Malankara Orthodox). We have a lot of issues that need to be addressed. To condemn our sister churches based on diocesan bishops is impractical. We acknowledge we are all imperfect, and we need to work on many of these issues together, hopefully soon.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 01:13:24 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

This sounds harsh, but in no way meant to condemn our sister churches as heretical. We believe in certain principles, and we hope that if we succeed in keeping strict these principles, that we may be an example to other churches without condemnation, especially since this practice is extremely common now.

It seems somewhat selective, though, to threaten with schism over the enthronement of a bishop in another city, while no thought at all is given to the problem of multiple bishops having jurisdiction over the same territory, which is a much greater problem in that it calls to question the catholicity of the Church and the integrity of the local eucharistic assembly represented by the bishop. There are many reasons this principle is not observed among the Orthodox, so my point is rather about the over-emphasis on one particular canon over all the others.

That being said, I am glad that the Copts are bringing the abandoning of this particular canon to the fore, something I think the wider Orthodox world would do well to consider.

This sounds harsh, but in no way meant to condemn our sister churches as heretical. We believe in certain principles, and we hope that if we succeed in keeping strict these principles, that we may be an example to other churches without condemnation, especially since this practice is extremely common now.

It seems somewhat selective, though, to threaten with schism over the enthronement of a bishop in another city, while no thought at all is given to the problem of multiple bishops having jurisdiction over the same territory, which is a much greater problem in that it calls to question the catholicity of the Church and the integrity of the local eucharistic assembly represented by the bishop. There are many reasons this principle is not observed among the Orthodox, so my point is rather about the over-emphasis on one particular canon over all the others.

That being said, I am glad that the Copts are bringing the abandoning of this particular canon to the fore, something I think the wider Orthodox world would do well to consider.

That too...indeed, we have a lot to work on. Hopefully, in dealing with one canonical issue, this opens the door to dealing with that one as well.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

This sounds harsh, but in no way meant to condemn our sister churches as heretical. We believe in certain principles, and we hope that if we succeed in keeping strict these principles, that we may be an example to other churches without condemnation, especially since this practice is extremely common now.

It seems somewhat selective, though, to threaten with schism over the enthronement of a bishop in another city, while no thought at all is given to the problem of multiple bishops having jurisdiction over the same territory, which is a much greater problem in that it calls to question the catholicity of the Church and the integrity of the local eucharistic assembly represented by the bishop. There are many reasons this principle is not observed among the Orthodox, so my point is rather about the over-emphasis on one particular canon over all the others.

That being said, I am glad that the Copts are bringing the abandoning of this particular canon to the fore, something I think the wider Orthodox world would do well to consider.

I don't think anyone with any real authority ever seriously considered schism. A group in the states set up a website calling for self rule. Some people threw it around on online fora. One priest said he wouldn't commemorate them in the Liturgy or recognize them, which is very different from breaking Communion.

I think they're one and the same problem. We've adopted an essentially Roman Catholic ecclesiology without noticing it. We've forgotten what the Church is, and started acting as though the Church were an institution. The breaking of so many canons is a symptom of having a differing mindset underlying our actions than the Fathers who drafted those canons had. What we need is a careful and scholarly examination of Orthodox ecclesiology in order to rediscover it, and through that proper lens gauge what changes from ancient practise are warranted developments, or necessary concessions to unusual circumstances, and which are just wrong and should be stopped.

No one here is qualified to provide all the answers, but asking the questions is good to push the bishops into considering it more. It should be in a respectful spirit being willing to learn together though. The organization of the Church does develop, and trying to do everything like in the 2nd century isn't the right way. Demanding that and accusing everyone who disagrees of being unprincipled isn't going to help. What we need is to relearn our ecclesiology and start evaluating and discussion the changes and corruptions, and sorting out which are which.

I have seen an anonymous article about General Bishops which was on the canon15 site. I think it reflects my views pretty closely.

I would wish that there were no General Bishops, and that there be instead Diocesan Bishops, Chorepiscopi and Deacons engaged in the various works which General Bishops are now conducting.

I think that it is dangerous to have 30 General Bishops all directly subject to the Pope, and it is not fair on General Bishops engaged in Diocesan ministry not to be a full Diocesan Bishop.

I have corresponded with Catholic theologians and they were of the mind that they wished that only monks could become bishops because it caused many problems breaking this canon. It cannot help but create a career structure. In fact the first bishop ever to be moved in the Western Church was not until 882 AD. His successor dug up his body and stripped it of the papal vestments he had assumed and excommunicated him because it was considered such a grave sin to have left the diocese to which he had been consecrated and accept another.